Pesek v. Discepolo
475 N.E.2d 3, 86 Ill. Dec. 197, 130 Ill. App. 3d 785 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a cause of action for negligent supervision against a minor's parents or a school acting in loco parentis, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants knew or should have known of the minor's propensity to commit the specific type of harmful act that occurred, not merely general knowledge of the minor's delinquency or truancy.
Facts:
- Anthony Discepolo was a 15-year-old student registered at Morton East High School.
- On May 18, 1982, a school day, Anthony Discepolo was truant from school at 11:10 a.m.
- While truant, Anthony Discepolo went to Anastasia Pesek's home and raped her.
- Pesek alleged that Anthony's parents, Armino and Lydia Discepolo, knew he was truant, associated with delinquents, engaged in criminal conduct, and used alcohol or drugs.
- Pesek made identical allegations of knowledge against Morton East High School.
- Pesek's complaint did not allege that either the parents or the school had knowledge of any previous similar acts of violence committed by Anthony.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, Anastasia Pesek, filed a three-count complaint in the circuit court of Cook County (a trial court) against Anthony Discepolo, his parents, and his high school.
- The trial court granted the motions to dismiss filed by the parents (Count II) and the high school (Count III) with prejudice.
- Plaintiff, now the appellant, appealed the dismissal of Counts II and III to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint state a valid cause of action for negligent supervision against a minor's parents and school by alleging they knew of the minor's general truancy and delinquency, but fails to allege they had knowledge of the minor's propensity to commit a similar violent act?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice McGloon
No. A complaint fails to state a cause of action for negligent supervision against a minor's parents or school without alleging their specific knowledge of the minor's propensity for the type of harm that occurred. The court acknowledged the exception to the general rule of no parental liability, as stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316, which requires a parent to know of the 'necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.' This 'necessity' is not established by general allegations of truancy or delinquency. The court distinguished this case from precedents like Ellis v. D’Angelo, where the parents specifically knew of their child's habit of committing similar violent acts. Because the complaint here only alleged knowledge of general misbehavior and not a propensity for sexual violence, the specific harm was not foreseeable, and the parents and school had no actionable duty to prevent it.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a high bar for establishing parental liability and liability for institutions acting in loco parentis. It narrows the scope of negligent supervision claims by requiring a direct link between the parent's knowledge and the specific type of harm caused by the minor. The ruling clarifies that foreseeability is paramount and cannot be established by a minor's general history of being a 'troublemaker.' This precedent protects parents and schools from broad liability for sudden, uncharacteristic, and unforeseeable acts of violence committed by minors.
Unlock the full brief for Pesek v. Discepolo